Re-arrange the following words to form a well-known phrase.
Their by petards own hoist:
“A CRIMINAL investigation has been started by Scotland Yard into an advertisement from the Gay Police Association (GPA) that blamed religion for a 74 per cent increase in homophobic crime…
Detective Chief Inspector Gerry Campbell, who leads the domestic violence and hate crime unit, disclosed the investigation in a letter to Ann Widdecombe, the Conservative MP. He wrote: “The original advertisement has been recorded as a religiously aggravated hate crime incident following a crime allegation by a member of the public.
“This crime is now the subject of a proportionate effective and objective criminal investigation. The police senior investigating officer is in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. Any decision to prosecute is the sole decision of the CPS.”
Do not just read the article, savour it. For the time is fast approaching when this chaotic edifice will collapse into a little black-hole of nothingness under the massive weight of its own absurdity.
“…the massive weight of its own absurdity.”
The vocabulary is why I keep coming back. That and the POV. Keep up the good work!
You mean religiously motivated hate crime has become a problem over there? Who’d a thunk it?
Just wait till they discover that the GPA members who posted the advert are Black…
The model for a closed self-limiting system used to be a snake devouring its tail. Now, I think it’s a post-modernist trying to shove his head farther up his ass.
What is up with this …
Corps to Recall Marines in Individual Ready Reserve to Active Duty
74% seems a little exact. From my experience in physics I have learned a health distain for overly exact statistics that mean nothing.
that should have been “healthy”, obviously. And so to bed…
Do they still find time tho persecute thugs?
This part is telling:
Bernard McEldowney, the deputy chairman of the association, which is an independent body, said: “We wanted to focus on what we regard as a problem of faith-based homophobia, not just Christianity.
“But when most people think about religion they think of the Bible which is why we agreed to illustrate the advert pictorially with a Bible.
“In hindsight maybe we should not have used the Bible but we wanted to highlight serious homophobic incidents on the grounds and justification of religious belief.”
I think, Bernie me ol’ mucker, that people tend to think more of the Koran in relation to religiously motivated hate. It was disingenuous of him to try and slide away using “religious = bible” argument.
But of course, Bernie would not have DARED use the Koran or use a Koranic tagline for he is scared witless.. “Boy copper…”.
Of course if hatred (as opposed to physical attack) is a crime then most people are criminals – as most of us hate something, and we show it in who we associate with (and we associate with them) and who we do not associate with.
Nor does it surprise me that homosexual rights activists (some of whom are not even homosexual – they are just the normal obsessive interventionists) hate traditional religion.
One of the basic doctrines of traditional Jewish, Christian and Muslim (amongst other) religion is what would be called today “homophobia”.
Sadly I do not think the system is self limiting. One branch of the police will put out antiChristian adverts and another branch (or perhaps the same branch) will investigate them for it.
Another increase in paperwork – which they will cite as a reason for an increase in staff, budget and powers.
The system feeds off its own absurdity – it is not limited by it.
The basic point is as follows.
Either we return to the concept of a crime as a violation of the body or goods of someone else or we do not.
Freedom to associate should include freedom not to associate.
The J.S. Mill alternative (the “harm principle” as opposed to the nonaggression principle) with people not being allowed to “parade their shunning” of other people (because this hurts folk’s feelings) leads to all this nonsense.
If a bigot does not want someone in his store on the grounds that they have blue eyes (or have black skin, or are Methodist, or whatever) that should be no concern of the law.
However, while the doctrine of “nondiscrimination” and freedom from “harm” (as opposed to attack) remains accepted as a basis of law we are going to see ever greater nonsense.
We have a winner! This will be a recurring image for such posts.
Gay cops, religion and alchemical symbols. The Golden Bough reduces to the gilded blow.
Delicious! More!!!
Camille Pagilia refers to gay activists as ‘Dostoevskian anarchists’ and I believe she has a point. She makes an important point that gays have forgotten what is the function of sex. I don’t care what the religious believe, my beef is with the idea that gay activists insist that same-sex behavior is normal to nature. It isn’t.
Biologically speaking the sex organs are designed to reproduce the species, orgasms are a by-product of such act.
Same-sex activity is not normal to human nature.
I don’t care whether people enjoy same-sex activites but I draw the line at being forced to accept same-sex activity as normal to human nature.
This type of irrational enforcement of an illogical premise is oppressive. I’d say far more oppressive than what any gay person experiences with those who hold religious beliefs. Using emotional blackmail as a means to over-rule logic is what I find most offensive.
Syn, I can only assume you have never lived near a farm. Homosexuality is by no means limited to humans, suggesting it is entirely ‘normal to nature’, for whatever that is worth.
I seem to be missing something here. Well several things actually.
What were the Gay police Association advertising FOR?
More gay police or what? Or were they just having a bit of a bitch.
If I’d been beaten up by Jehovahs Witnesses I’d be very reluctant to report it!
Indeed, where are the MSN reports on these attacks? I havent seen one.
If the police have time to investigate this kind of stuff then there are too many of them. Some process akin to decimation is called for that will get rid of about 50 000 of them. Also it was a mistake to recruit graduates who are mostly from sociology departments in any case. We should go back to recruitment based on the size of their feet!
Dunno RAB,
I often see marauding gangs of Jehovah’s witnesses beating up men with vests, shaven heads and large moustaches. A well rolled-up Watchtower is a lethal weapon in the hands of these highly-trained cadres…
You miss a bigger point. You ask what the GPA was advertising for? I wonder what the GPA is for?
Apart from their legendary truncheon parties of course…
Syn said
As other commenters have pointed out this is not correct. IIRC there is a famous outtake of BBC wildlife presenter Bill Oddie doing a piece to camera with a couple of stags going at it in the background.
Also see < href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/031225377X/026-2545075-5267657?v=glance&n=266239&s=gateway&v=glance">this
(PS I’m straight and atheist, not that it’s really relevant.)
Link added:here
Others have observed the error in this.
The problem is conflating uncommon with abnormal.
many other species engage in homosexual activity. Including our close relatives, Chimpanzees.
What is really uncommon is a species that creates technological marvels to do all sorts of things abnormal to itself; like fly without its own wings; spend weeks underwater without gills; communicate over thousands of miles without sound or even light.
Now there’s your problem.
“insist that same-sex behavior is normal to nature. It isn’t. … Same-sex activity is not normal to human nature.
Others have observed the error in this.
The problem is conflating uncommon with abnormal.
many other species engage in homosexual activity. Including our close relatives, Chimpanzees.”
Humans are considered to be superior to the animals due to our possession of a conscious will. Animals are driven by instincts and urges (yes, they can learn, this is a generalization), while humans in a civilized society are to control these instincts and urges through morality and willpower.
I suggest that the same arguments that are used to promote the acceptance of homosexuality could (that’s could not should) be used to promote the acceptance of promiscuity, rape, torture, murder, etc. (the list of urge-driven behavior is very long). One could say “We all have these urges, they are natural, who are you to say my behavior is wrong?”
Aren’t humans superior to Chimps?
As a matter of fact I was raise on a farm (actually a ranch) Jason. I saw dogs, cats, horses, cows, chickens behave in fashion contrary to their basic nature and not applicable just to sexual behavior. Simply because they behaved in fashion contrary to their nature does not validate their behavior as natural.
How about animals engaging in same-sex activity cannot reproduce therefore are engaging in activity which is the antithesis to the function of the sex organs.
Doesn’t matter that what is the behavior my point is relative to the function. Somewhere along the line we lost the meaning of the function of the sex organs. Reproducion is the function of the sex organs all else are by-products of this function.
Ironically much of what we believe sex to be stems from religious rhetoric which brought about the meaning of sex in terms of feelings of intimacy, love, affection but again these all by-products of the function of sexual activity.
Uncommon would be two sperms (or two eggs) able to reproduce without their opposite.
Blech. The old ‘normal’ argument. I read an article (can’t remember where, sorry) that suggested the more social the species, the greater the incidence of homosexual behaviour. The idea being that being pleasuring someone else sexually gives them more intense pleasure than, say, picking nits out of their hair. So homosexual behaviour is just that: a behaviour. Perhaps the only abnormal thing here is that as humans we associate homosexuality with a whole range of personality traits; as a state of being, rather than as something people do. Being particularly fond of homosexual behaviour myself (to the exclusion of heterosexual behaviour so far) this is a theory that I am happy to accept.
Anyway, completely unrelated, I came across this heartwarming story of a family who rebuilt their home in New Orleans. Telling quote:
Some animals eat their young. Doesn’t justify it for humans.
I love children PL,
But you’re right.
I couldn’t eat a whole one.
That’s whole folks!
I really should use preview more often.
I remember reading a whole article in Scientific American about how Orang-Utans are rapists. You could tell the author was in tears.
This endangered species! Darlings of the Liberal Left! How could they?
It was quite hilarious.
PL: Some animals eat their young. Doesn’t justify it for humans.
*Sigh* the people using the “animals do it too” argument were not arguing that it justifies it in humans but were rebutting the “It’s against nature” argument.
Syn: Doesn’t matter that what is the behavior my point is relative to the function. Somewhere along the line we lost the meaning of the function of the sex organs. Reproducion is the function of the sex organs all else are by-products of this function.
Hope you’re using those feet for walking and not for moving levers for accelerating and decelerating vehicles powered by internal combustion. Or perhaps if you’re slightly greener for turning rotary motion into linear movement.
Come on people, get it together. Either it is “against nature” or “we humans are supposed to be able to think independently and behave other than our nature”.
Though it’s irellevant anyway. If you want to do it and it’s not harming anyone, it’s none of my concern.
Rich
If I may be so bold, I think that gay activists who cite examples of homosexuality in nature are attempting to refute claims, often made by religious folk, that homosexuality is to be actively condemned because it is ‘unnatural’ (as in, does not occur in the rest of the animal kingdom*). Whilst this may not be the best way to refute such claims, I can see their point. A better approach might be to point to other patently unnatural acts that are not subject to the same condemnation, such as performing keyhole surgery or having religious beliefs. In other words, the frequency with which certain behaviour occurs in the rest of the animal kingdom should be no basis for human morality.
As for the GPA’s advert, and the DVHCU’s response, I entirely agree with the spirit of Thaddeus’s post: absurd.
* If you take unnatural to mean ‘does not make use of organs for the purposes evolution intended’ then you’re on even shakier ground; counter-examples abound showing how silly this is: evolution surely did not intend for ears to be used as places from which to suspend earrings, yet those who condemn homosexuality as unnatural in this way usually have no problems with people wearing earrings.
Chris,
You swine! You got there before me. I agree wholeheartedly that essentially most of modern human nature is “unnatural”. To focus just on sex is perverse.
Oh bugger, the earring thing kinda got my second point too.
I guess I’m just left with a little thing. If the genitals are about reproduction, then what is the point of the clitoris?
Right, I’m off.
Chris,
Yeah, you got my support. Whenever anyone starts using the word ‘natural’ in support of their argument I know they have lost.
The entire practice of medicine has no purpose other than to obviate the effects of what is natural. Ditto the clothing, building, manufacturing and you name it industries.
My response to ‘natural’ is to tell them next time there is a thunderstorm to go squat naked and hungry under a tree, and then tell me how wonderful ‘natural’ is.
Mother nature is a vicious old bitch, and any time you can get her in an arm lock on the floor – keep her there.
Nick – Um, if you are unaware of the purpose of the clitoris I guess there are ladies out there who are sorely pissed with you. Unless you are naturally gay, that is.
🙂
This site really doesn’t deserve these racist and homophobic twits that occasionally turn up. Although one has to admire the gall:
-Homosexuality is “unnatural”, therefore wrong!
-Well actually homosexuality is natural…
-AH ha! So now you are trying to justify homosexuality just BECAUSE its natural. Well I’ll tell you what else is natural: murder, rape & eating your own shit- thats what!
-Yeah but we weren’t saying it was ok because it was natural but because it doesnt conflict with the rights of others…
-Rights? Rights!!? It’s political correctness GONE MAD, I TELLS YA!
I have never in my life understood an aversion to homosexuality. It is not a matter of knowing I must be tolerant and overcoming a visceral distaste, but a real honest to god total lack of concern.
Seriously, why would you care what someone does in bed unless you are interested in finding out whether they will do it with you? What does it otherwise matter?
The other argument is – We are part of nature, therefore anything we do is ‘natural’. On this basis the Petronas Towers are no less natural than a bird nest or a beaver dam. And two blokes shagging one another silly is just as natural as two lady chimps going in for a bit of girl on girl action in front of the outing from the local convent school.
In which case the Day of Judgment will come as a very unpleasant surprise.
If you dear people cannot see the damage done to society by promoting the idea that sex is nothing more than a genital act to be indulged in at the drop of a hat with anyone and everyone, you obviously do not want to see it. As one Christian writer has said, “unbelief is volitional”.
Sure, rationality is volitional too, which is why I gave up on the whole God thing.
And it is simply a technological fact that ‘sex ain’t what it used to be’. Some may regard the end of woman-as-breeding-machine as societal damage but I regard it as one of the greatest developments in the history of mankind. Likewise there may be sexual activities I am uncomfortable with but that does not mean I really give a damn if other people do them as long as I do not have to watch.